New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[dieterbrock]

Why don't they have time? They are playing in a stadium that has hosted Superbowls in San Diego. If I'm Spanos - I want to stay put - albeit in a new stadium. But there's rarely a bad day to play in San Diego.

Great post. Just doesn't seem logical to me that they can't work something out there

 

[dieterbrock]

The irony of this whole mess is, the 2 most realistic
Stadium proposals are both for the Rams.

Ain't that the truth

 

[iced]

Since we are in full speculation mode, has anyone ever actually asked Davis or Spanos what they will do if Stan gets LA and chooses the other team to be roommates with in Inglewood? Lots of speculation it will be the Chargers although if it were me I'd take the Raiders. Hard to compete against a team that actually has winning seasons. Harsh I know, but that's reality. Any direct questions to either of these guys if that were to play out?

I'd like to read a rumor that says they'll be willing to work together first - haven't read a single one that suggests they might be open or willing to it,and supposedly the NFL was nudging them to work together... doesn't sound very willing to me

The Chargers have to wait for Carson. The stadium can't start construction until the final plan is done and the cleanup that will take at least 18 months if all goes well.

Right but the NFL is going to deem which stadium is viable and acceptable by then - the city of SD Doesn't have time to wait for a vote for their proposal, which isn't getting warm n fuzzies again either

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/spo...blic-Vote-For-New-Taxes-Needed-304071141.html

If there is no request for public tax dollars, no public vote would be necessary and the local government could conceivably vote on whether or not to go ahead with it in the next few months. However, San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer has promised a public vote on a new stadium and San Diego residents will likely still have input on the matter through a vote in some capacity.

 

[ChrisW]

Since we are in full speculation mode, has anyone ever actually asked Davis or Spanos what they will do if Stan gets LA and chooses the other team to be roommates with in Inglewood? Lots of speculation it will be the Chargers although if it were me I'd take the Raiders. Hard to compete against a team that actually has winning seasons. Harsh I know, but that's reality. Any direct questions to either of these guys if that were to play out?

TBH, I wouldn't want to share a stadium with anyone. Franchises go through cycles (well most do), and on your down years, you'd lose fans to the other team.

 

[The Ripper]

Right but the NFL is going to deem which stadium is viable and acceptable by then - the city of SD Doesn't have time to wait for a vote for their proposal, which isn't getting warm n fuzzies again either

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/spo...blic-Vote-For-New-Taxes-Needed-304071141.html

There are no certainty to the Carson site what if it takes 3 years to clean up the site and that would be a stretch if is subsidence has occurred. Will the NFL risk that kind of delay. They can't know the time frame till the start the work.

It may not getting the "warm n fuzzies" but at least from the leaks there's $600 to $ 700 million in public money and it's a close to the 57% average for stadiums over the last 20 years

 

[iced]

There are no certainty to the Carson site what if it takes 3 years to clean up the site and that would be a stretch if is subsidence has occurred. Will the NFL risk that kind of delay. They can't know the time frame till the start the work.

I don't think the NFL would approve their plan if it hinged on 3 years to clean up - however, as you said, it's 18 months, and can't be started until a developmental plan is in place.

I think you're missing the point of what I saying - the NFL is going to be most likely choosing this fall who's moving to LA. If SD is going to have a public vote for their stadium in 2016, the NFL would have already picked a team by then.

It may not getting the "warm n fuzzies" but at least from the leaks there's $600 to $ 700 million in public money and it's a close to the 57% average for stadiums over the last 20 years

Except their method may not be one the nfl likes

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/spo...blic-Vote-For-New-Taxes-Needed-304071141.html

Then you have the proposal of development generating money for the stadium. The concept there is areas surrounding the stadium will be filled with condominiums, apartments, restaurants and retail stores. Those private businesses will be taxed and that money will go towards the cost of the new facility.

The problem with this idea is it takes a long time for the money to come in and the NFL has explicitly said they do not want new stadiums being financed this way. However, if it is only a small percentage of the total cost the league could look at it.

If there is no request for public tax dollars, no public vote would be necessary and the local government could conceivably vote on whether or not to go ahead with it in the next few months. However, San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer has promised a public vote on a new stadium and San Diego residents will likely still have input on the matter through a vote in some capacity.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I'd like to read a rumor that says they'll be willing to work together first - haven't read a single one that suggests they might be open or willing to it,and supposedly the NFL was nudging them to work together... doesn't sound very willing to me

Fabiani said it was an option. Link to the interview in the quote below. You have to download the podcast, and skip to it, but its there. And Fred, for as annoying as he is, is right when he points out that it would have been easy to dance around the question, especially given it's a competition between the two.

If it gets done, hard to say, personally I do have my doubt's, but he still hinted it was possible.

Interview starts at 21 minute mark.
Mark Fabiani just told Fred Roggin that the Rams and Chargers playing in Inglewood is "certainly an option."
After the interview Fred tells you what he took away from the interview.

http://download.podcast.play.it/media/d0/d0/d1/d8/d5/d1/dD/1851D_3.MP3?show=The Fred Roggin Show&category=Sports & Recreation&callsign=KFWBAM&market=las-vegas&listeningSessionID=55099cb24b69f3e9_2626231_Zrt8tSJ9_00000000Cki

 

[The Ripper]

I don't think the NFL would approve their plan if it hinged on 3 years to clean up - however, as you said, it's 18 months, and can't be started until a developmental plan is in place.

I think you're missing the point of what I saying - the NFL is going to be most likely choosing this fall who's moving to LA. If SD is going to have a public vote for their stadium in 2016, the NFL would have already picked a team by then.


Except their method may not be one the nfl likes

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/spo...blic-Vote-For-New-Taxes-Needed-304071141.html

The NFL may not like how the money eventually gets paid back but if they can get quickly to fund the stadium and with it being close to 700 million in public money makes it a strong proposal.

Since Grubman's visit the most talked about date for an election has been November.

 

[iced]

If it gets done, hard to say, personally I do have my doubt's, but he still hinted it was possible.

possible - but it would leave davis out in the cold in oakland (which they could do lol)

 

[The Ripper]

possible - but it would leave davis out in the cold in oakland (which they could do lol)

Not funny but the Davis family did it to themselves when they didn't join in on Levi at the start

 

[iced]

The NFL may not like how the money eventually gets paid back but if they can get quickly to fund the stadium and with it being close to 700 million in public money makes it a strong proposal.

If the NFL doesn't like how its being financed then thats all that matters - they've made it clear from the get go they don't want stadiums being financed that way

 

[iced]

Not funny but the Davis family did it to themselves when they didn't join in on Levi at the start

Good thing they didn't - the niner red would be painted in blood

I have a hard time believing that two teams that aren't allowed to play each other in the preseason due to fan violence are going to share a stadium

 

[The Ripper]

If the NFL doesn't like how its being financed then thats all that matters - they've made it clear from the get go they don't want stadiums being financed that way

If they have the cash in hand, hard to turn down because if they did just opens up a very good case for another owner turning down a proposal with a lot less public money.

The situation with the Chargers and Raiders is exactly the same.

 

[Hacksaw]

It seems like the Raiders have become the angry orphan that foster parent after foster parent keeps returning to the orphanage or adoption agency.

I still can't see how cutting the balls off of San Diego, St Louis or Oakland by moving the goalposts on the timeline is fair to anyone.

What is the point?

They can still continue to play where they are. All their losing is LA. Is the league afraid that those two cities will just blow their teams stadium plans off after LA is filled? Or do they feel it's necessary they both moved to LA? It sure seems it have to be one or the other of those two scenarios.

 

[iced]

If they have the cash in hand, hard to turn down because if the did just opens up a very good case for another owner turning down a proposal with a lot less public money.

The situation with the Chargers and Raiders is exactly the same.

doesn't sound like cash in hand, that's why they have an issue with the stadium

Then you have the proposal of development generating money for the stadium. The concept there is areas surrounding the stadium will be filled with condominiums, apartments, restaurants and retail stores. Those private businesses will be taxed and that money will go towards the cost of the new facility.
The problem with this idea is it takes a long time for the money to come in and the NFL has explicitly said they do not want new stadiums being financed this way.

Either way, if it doesn't meet the NFL's standards then it doesn't matter. I'm not talking about Spanos's, I'm talking about Grubman and the committee

Also doesn't matter if they're asking for too much team money

 

[iced]

It seems like the Raiders have become the angry orphan thar foster parent after foster parent keeps returning to the orphanage or adoption agency.

I still can't see how cutting the balls off of San Diego, St Louis or Oakland by moving the goalposts on the timeline is fair to anyone.

What is the point?

They can still continue to play where they are. All their losing is LA. Is the league afraid that those two cities will just blow their teams Stadium plans off after LA is filled? Or do they feel it's necessary they both moved to LA It sure seems it have to be one or the other of those two scenarios.

I think it's about pressure...remember,Chargers and Raiders have been doing this dance for over a decade.

"Make a real offer or they're gone"

 

[The Ripper]

doesn't sound like cash in hand, that's why they have an issue with the stadium

Either way, if it doesn't meet the NFL's standards then it doesn't matter. I'm not talking about Spanos's, I'm talking about Grubman and the committee

The standards are what the Chargers are willing to accept. The same way as with the Rams.

 

[iced]

The standards are what the Chargers are willing to accept. The same way as with the Rams.

I don't agree. The stadium committee and the NFL determines the criteria and quality a stadium must meet - both the plan on financing and the actual stadium itself. If it doesn't meet that criteria, then that's what matters.

Sure a team can turn down a stadium, but just because it was turned down doesn't mean it didn't meet an NFL criteria, which is important for getting the votes to move/relocate, and I would make the argument its part of arguing in good faith.

We've heard nothing but good things about the Riverfront stadium and the NFL's reaction to it - and with Peacock working directly with them and using their input, its fair to assume he's going to meet their standards. Not Kroenke's, but the NFL's. San Diego needs to atleast do the same thing - meet the NFL's standards.

 

[The Ripper]

Do you trust the NFL? The reason for the statement is that neither proposal is 100% of that they're looking for. One not enough public money and the other not the type of public money they want so in the end it will be up to the owners to apply the standards fairly.

 

[iced]

Do you trust the NFL? The reason for the statement is that neither proposal is 100% of that they're looking for. One not enough public money and the other not the type of public money they want so in the end it will be up to the owners to apply the standards fairly.

Except the NFL not liking projects funded this way isn't new.

do you even know where this $700 million public funding is supposed to come from anyway?